Capital Punishment: Injustice Of Society Essay, Research Paper

Capital Punishment: Injustice of Society

Looking out for the state of the public’s satisfaction in the scheme of

capital sentencing does not constitute serving justice. Today’s system of

capital punishment is fraught with inequalities and injustices. The commonly

offered arguments for the death penalty are filled with holes. “It was a

deterrent. It removed killers. It was the ultimate punishment. It is biblical.

It satisfied the public’s need for retribution. It relieved the anguish of the

victim’s family.”(Grisham 120) Realistically, imposing the death penalty is

expensive and time consuming. Retroactively, it has yet to be proven as a

deterrent. Morally, it is a continuation of the cycle of violence and

“…degrades all who are involved in its enforcement, as well as its

victim.”(Stewart 1)

Perhaps the most frequent argument for capital punishment is that of

deterrence. The prevailing thought is that imposition of the death penalty will

act to dissuade other criminals from committing violent acts. Numerous studies

have been created attempting to prove this belief; however, “[a]ll the evidence

taken together makes it hard to be confident that capital punishment deters more

than long prison terms do.”(Cavanagh 4) Going ever farther, Bryan Stevenson,

the executive director of the Montgomery based Equal Justice Initiative, has

stated that, “?people are increasingly realizing that the more we resort to

killing as a legitimate response to our frustration and anger with violence, the

more violent our society becomes?We could execute all three thousand people on

death row, and most people would not feel any safer tomorrow.”(Frame 51) In

addition, with the growing humanitarianism of modern society, the number of

inmates actually put to death is substantially lower than 50 years ago. This

decline creates a situation in which the death penalty ceases to be a deterrent

when the populace begins to think that one can get away with a crime and go

unpunished. Also, the less that the death sentence is used, the more it becomes

unusual, thus coming in conflict with the eighth amendment. This is essentially

a paradox, in which the less the death penalty is used, the less society can

legally use it. The end result is a punishment that ceases to deter any crime

at all.

The key part of the death penalty is that it involves death – something

which is rather permanent for humans, due to the concept of mortality. This

creates a major problem when “?there continue to be many instances of innocent

people being sentenced to death.”(Tabak 38) In our legal system, there exist

numerous ways in which justice might be poorly served for a recipient of the

death sentence. Foremost is in the handling of his own defense counsel. In the

event that a defendant is without counsel, a lawyer will be provided.

“Attorney’s appointed to represent indigent capital defendants frequently lack

the qualities necessary to provide a competent defense and sometimes have

exhibited such poor character that they have subsequently been disbarred.”(Tabak

37). With payment caps or court determined sums of, for example, $5 an hour,

there is not much incentive for a lawyer to spend a great deal of time

representing a capital defendant. When you compare this to the prosecution, “?

aided by the police, other law enforcement agencies, crime labs, state mental

hospitals, various other scientific resources, prosecutors ?experienced in

successfully handling capital cases, compulsory process, and grand juries?

“(Tabak 37), the defense that the court appointed counsel can offer is puny.

If, in fact, a defendant has a valid case to offer, what chance has he to offer

it and have it properly recognized. Furthermore, why should he be punished for

a misjustice that was created by the court itself when it appointed the

incapable lawyer.

Even if a defendant has proper legal counsel, there is still the matter

of impartiality of judges. “The Supreme Court has steadily reduced the

availability of habeas corpus review of capital convictions, placing its

confidence in the notion that state judges, who take the same oath of office as

federal judges to uphold the Constitution, can be trusted to enforce it.”(Bright

768) This makes for the biased trying of a defendant’s appeals, “?given the

overwhelming pressure on elected state judges to heed, and perhaps even lead to,

the popular cries for the death of criminal defendants.”(Bright 769) Thirty-two

of the states that impose the death penalty also employ the popular election of

judges, and several of these even have judges run with party affiliations. This

creates a deeply political justice system — the words alone are a paradox. Can

society simply brush off mistaken execution as an incidental cost in the greater

scheme of putting a criminal to death?

“Revenge is an unworthy motive for our society to pursue.”(Whittier 1)

In our society, there is a great expectation placed on the family of a victim

to pursue vengeance to the highest degree — the death penalty. Pat Bane,

executive director of the Murder Victims Families for Reconciliation (MVFR)

stated, “One parent told me that people made her feel like she was betraying her

son because she did not want to kill the person who murdered him.”(Frame 50)

This creates a dilemma of morality. If anything, by forcing families to seek

the death penalty, their own consciences will be burdened by the death of the

killer. Furthermore, “[k]illing him will not bring back your son[s].”(Grisham

402). At some point, man must stop the violence. Seeking temporary

gratification is not a logical basis for whether the death penalty should be

imposed. Granted, revenge is easily confused with retribution, and most would

agree that the punishment should fit the crime, but can society really justify

murdering someone else simply on the basis that they deserved it? Government

has the right and duty to protect the greater good against people who jeopardize

the welfare of society, but a killer can be sentenced to life without chance of

parole, and society will be just as safe as if he had been executed.

A vast misconception concerning the death penalty is that it saves

society the costs of keeping inmates imprisoned for long periods. In the act of

preserving due process of justice, the court appeals involved with the death

penalty becomes a long, drawn-out and very expensive process. “The average time

between sentencing and execution for the 31 prisoners put on death row in 1992

was 114 months, or nine and a half years.”(Stewart 50) “Criminal justice

process expenses, trial court costs, appellate and post-conviction costs, and

prison costs perhaps including years served on death row awaiting execution…

all told, the extra costs per death penalty imposed in over a quarter million

dollars, and per execution exceeds $2 million.” (Cavanagh 4) When you compare

this to the average costs for a twenty year prison term for first degree murder

(roughly $330 thousand), the cost of putting someone away for life is a deal.

Is it really worth the hassle and money to kill a criminal, when we can put them

away for life for less money with a great deal more ease?

In earlier times–where capital punishment was common, the value of life

was less, and societies were more barbaric–capital punishment was probably

quite acceptable. However, in today’s society, which is becoming ever more

increasingly humanitarian, and individual rights and due process of justice are

held in high accord, the death penalty is becoming an unrealistic form of

punishment. Also, with the ever-present possibility of mistaken execution,

there will remain the question of innocence of those put to death. Finally, man

is not a divine being. He does not have the right to inflict mortal punishment

in the name of society’s welfare, when there are suitable substitutes that

require fewer resources. I ask society, “…why don’t we stop the

killing?”(Grisham 404)

Bibliography

Bright, Steven B., and Patrick J. Keenan. “Judges and the Politics of Death:

Deciding Between the Bill of Rights and the Next Election in Capital Cases.”

Boston University Law Review 75 (1995): 768-69.

Cavanagh, Suzanne, and David Teasley. “Capital Punishment: A Brief Overview.”

CRS Report For Congress 95-505GOV (1995): 4.

Frame, Randy. “A Matter Of Life and Death.” Christianity Today 14 Aug. 1995:

50

Grisham, John. The Chamber. New York: Island Books, 1994.

Stewart, David O. “Dealing with Death.” American Bar Association Journal

80.11 (1994): 50

Tabak, Ronald J. “Report: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel and Lack of Due

Process in Death Penalty Cases.” Human Rights 22.Winter (1995): 36

Whittier, Charles H. “Moral Arguments For and Against Capital Punishment.”

CRS Report For Congress (1996): 1